Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head Start Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res. 84; 113th Congress)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Selective appropriations legislation strategy during United States federal government shutdown of 2013. The overall consensus in this discussion is that these individual pieces of legislation do not have enough notability on their own, but instead have notability as a part of the overall Republican strategy of selective appropriations legislation (this point has been argued well below). This stands to reason given that during the tenure of the shutdown the vast majority of coverage in this regard was done on the entire strategy of selective legislation. Therefore, I can safely assume that there are a myriad of sources giving the required notability to such an article. The only issue that may present itself here is in the new article remaining neutral, which it seems is an issue with the current individual articles. So I would only ask that editors working on the combination of these bills, ensure that they are doing so in accordance with WP:POV. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Head Start Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res. 84&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Existence of a bill, or even passage in one house, does not mean notability. Minor WP:NEWS coverage relates to the United States federal government shutdown of 2013, where information is already covered, not to bills specifically, nor is is anything beyond standard news of Congressional activity. WP is not GovTrack, OpenCongress, or a WP:DIRECTORY of the countless bills that are introduced. Significant text is copied-and-pasted from the Congressional Research Service and duplicated across the articles, as is general information about the shutdown and procedures that is duplicated from the main article. This has little reference to, and no evidence of notability of, the individual bills. Reywas92 Talk 06:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 12.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 07:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep DC CR. Even if the other bills do not have enough notability, this one regarding the District of Columbia local government funding has been covered in both the Washington Times and the Washington Post because of the split within the Democratic party over it. Democrats DC mayor Vincent C. Gray and DC representative Eleanor Holmes Norton have publicly appealed to Harry Reid and Barack Obama to pass this bill into law to ensure that funding for the DC local government continues. Otherwise there will be major problems with trash pickup, education of children by charter schools, etc.. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge The issue with duplication of material can be fixed and doesn't impact deletion. The fact that these bills did pass a house of Congress is a significant factor supporting their notability.  In addition, all of the articles currently cite at least two independent sources in their "Debate and discussion" sections, except for Head Start, Food and Drug Administration and Veterans Benefits, which have one.  The National Parks one in particular has a fairly large discussion section.  These sections could certainly be expanded, and the identical "Background" sections should be condensed, but these issues warrant improvement rather than deletion.  If consensus does not support keeping these as separate articles, then I would support a merge to an article discussing all bills in this category, possibly entitled something like October 2013 continuing resolutions.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Edit: Now that the government shutdown has been resolved through other legislation, these bills have been effectively superseded.  I think that the bills together are notable enough to be kept as a merged article.  It's worth noting that one bill in this category, the Department of Defense Survivor Benefits Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (which does not currently have its own article) was in fact enacted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added five more sources to the Head Start bill, including information about Indian Head Start programs and a recent private $10 million donation to keep Head Start programs open in six states (a donation that would not be required if this bill has passed, which is why it is relevant). Regarding the background sections, I'm happy to see them improved, if anyone can think of ways to do so.  I was trying to operate on the notion that some people will only read one of the articles (or will read them in different orders), so "repeat" information isn't necessarily repeated for readers, just for those of us comparing multiple articles.  Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of bills are passed each year by at least one house of Congress. Enactment is better, but proposal or passage in one house absolutely does not confer notability. These sources are routine coverage of Washington, not an indication of notability or impact. Most of that discussion section covers the National Parks shutdown, not the bill itself, with the fourth paragraph and most of the third being entirely irrelevant to the bill. Reywas92 Talk 10:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Head Start bill, which is the official topic of the AFD doesn't mention the national parks at all, so I'm not sure which one you are talking about. HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and condensed the background sections. Wikipedia tends to treat articles as parts of an interconnected web rather than stand-alone documents.  Because it's easy to click a link to get more information about an unfamiliar topic (and also for maintainability reasons), it's discouraged to repeat the same text in multiple articles.  It's just a style thing that's uniform across all of Wikipedia.  (Also, this discussion is about all nine of the listed articles equally; Head Start was just arbitrarily chosen as the first item in the list, and thus ended up in the discussion title.)  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool! It does look better.  I didn't know that about the aversion to repeated text - I guess it does make sense as long as all of the right links are there.  As far as I'm concerned, this process of improving articles is exactly what should be happening, not deleting them. :) HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep These bills are an important piece of the story of the ongoing government shutdown. The fact that some Democrats are voting for each of them indicates a split, a cleavage in Democratic solidarity on how to treat the shutdown.  That's news.  The bills have also only been in existence for two weeks and the shutdown isn't over yet.  It would be silly to delete one of the articles today only to have the bill pass in a day or two.  Readers also have the right to know the specifics of what's in each of these appropriations bills.  One of the great things about Wikipedia is the hyperlink system so readers can find out what the major programs and departments that would be funded actually do - just by clicking on a blue link!  Yes, the articles do need expansion, but two weeks in, with no end in sight for the shutdown, it's premature to delete articles about bills heavily tied up in this situation. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep While I agree with the need for expansion and inclusion of more independent sources, this discussion seems to illustrate the limits of using independent sources alone as a proxy for notability. The trend in consumption of current events is away from intermediation (i.e. news reports) and toward direct consumption of information from primary sources. If people go directly to source documents that reflect significant developments rather than consuming "news" stories about them, surely that does not mean that those events are less notable or significant. Time will tell if these bills, which are part of a highly contentious, ongoing public debate, each deserve their own article, but it seems quite premature and unconsidered to delete them now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHarperDC (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate it when I forget to sign! JimHarperDC (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge Every session, there are close to a thousand bills that pass one body of Congress and never get enacted into law.  I could understand merging these and having an article for the mini-CR bills/strategy.  They are really only notable as a group, which is typically how they are discussed in sources.  There is no chance of these being enacted into law, so that greatly diminishes their notability.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I have to disagree, for several reasons. First, the fact that a thousand bills pass one chamber has no bearing on whether these particular bills are themselves notable.  Second, I think this whole AFD violates at least two of the rules outlined in the nominating procedure.  B2 (also D) indicates that a check for notability should be done, which clearly wasn't, considering the number of additional sources I've been able to find for each of these bills - sources that refer specifically and primarily to the bill in question, not just them as a collective.  C2 suggests that if an article is new, which these are, additional time be given for editors to continue improving it.  A notability tag or request for better sources or comments on the talk page would all have been better choices.  Third, unless you are a fortune-teller or work in Obama's office, you can't be sure whether these bills will pass or not - no one can.  Congress can be unpredictable - someone may cave under pressure, if not on all of them on some of them.  If none of these bills are passed AND the shutdown has concluded, then it might be appropriate to discuss a merger of the bills into one article.  Until them, I think it is most appropriate to keep and improve the articles individually.  Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While you are technically correct that these bills could become law, no reliable source that I have seen suggests that this is a realistic possibility. All of the proposals that I have seen in the House or the Senate in the last few days - whether from Susan Collins, House Republican leadership, or others, involve reopening the entire government and raising the debt ceiling for some period of time with certain other provisions. The bills involved in this AfD are not part of that conversation and were more about political tactics - forcing Congressional Democrats to vote against re-opening popular programs - than they were a serious attempt to solve the current crisis.GabrielF (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge I don't see why the bills are individually notable. They are all part of one larger effort to fund certain popular parts of the government in order to relieve some of the pressure from the shutdown. In the media these bills are generally discussed as part of one effort, rather than individually. Readers who want to understand this particular effort must read through 9 closely-related and largely duplicative articles. While this is not necessarily a rationale for deletion, the "debate and discussion" sections of these articles are heavily biased towards the Republican point of view. The NIH bill has about 2 paragraphs on the Republican point of view and one sentence on the Democratic point of view. Many articles use the same quote from the National Review excoriating Harry Reid, but they don't bother to explain Reid's position. There's also some soapboxing: the FDA article says: "The [New York Times Editorial] board's opinion was that "the longer Congressional Republicans allow the shutdown to continue, the greater the danger of harm," ignoring H.J.Res. 77 as a possible way to address this issue." But the last part of the sentence is original synthesis. The NYT editorial says nothing about the continuing resolution. In fact, the NYT has been extremely hostile to the Republican tactics regarding the shutdown and specifically called the mini-CR's "self-serving".GabrielF (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge all into United States federal government shutdown of 2013. The piecemeal-legislation strategy should be discussed as a whole there, not atomized. Neutralitytalk 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That article is already considered too long. So merging into it would be a problem. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be better to merge these into its own article, October 2013 mini-continuing resolutions. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all or Delete - The shutdown article is already very long. If information describing the details of all of these unsuccessful bills is to be kept, they should be merged into a single article describing them, as suggested by Antony-22. The shutdown is over, and none of these bills were that notable individually. Dezastru (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, the DC CR is notable because it caused a split in the Democratic party. Generally these articles are important because they provide evidence that the Republicans were NOT trying to shutdown the government, but rather to keep it open. A fact which the Democrats and their followers in the media have managed to largely obscure. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A biased political analysis does not make the bill notable. Trying to keep bits and pieces of the government open is not the same as keeping the government open. Regardless of who voted how, that was a failed bill with little independent notability. Reywas92 Talk 01:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A more neutral way to put this would be that each party had different conditions for reopening the government. These bills were an important part of the Republican strategy and thus should be covered in a commensurate manner to the Democratic strategy. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep. Legitimate daughter articles. James500 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -  Reywas92   has explained the problem with keeping all of these articles. Instead of arguing about them in the abstract, take a careful look, for example, at the actual text of two on the list: Federal Emergency Management Agency Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (which I will refer to as "FEMA") and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (or "SNAP"). FEMA is based on 9 references. The first 3 are for the three-paragraph background section, which has exactly the same text (or nearly so) for both FEMA and SNAP. The next 3 references are congressional records providing a summary of the provisions of the bill and housekeeping details (eg, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 was introduced into the House on October 3, 2013 by Rep. John Carter (R-TX).[6] It was referred to the United States House Committee on Appropriations.[6] On October 4, 2013, the House voted in Roll Call Vote 522 to pass the bill 247-164.") There then is a reference for a statement that a Republican in the House said the bill is in the national interest, and one for a statement that most Democrats voted against it because they opposed mini-continuing resolutions. Finally there is a reference to an opinion article by a columnist blaming the Senate majority leader for blocking passage of the bill in the Senate.


 * Turning to the SNAP article. We see there are 10 references. The first 3 again are for the background section, 4 are for a congressional records summary of the provisions and for housekeeping details, 2 for statements about support from the House Republicans and opposition from the House Democrats, and 1 for an opinion article blaming the Senate majority leader for blocking passage of the bill in the Senate.


 * In other words, these are little more than boilerplate stub articles on subjects that do not have individual notability WP:SIGCOV. If the articles are individually notable, it should be easy to find additional sources on each of the subjects, demonstrating their notability. Dezastru (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic of a daughter article does not have to be independently notable. We do not spin off daughter articles because their topics are notable. We spin them off because there is a 2MB absolute limit on the length of pages. This is a technical restriction due to the limitations of browsers. And I am told above that the main article is already too long (from that technical point of view).. James500 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The topic of a daughter article does not have to be independently notable." WP:SPLIT says otherwise. See also WP:SIGCOV. Dezastru (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SPLIT is neither a policy nor a guideline. My reading of the actual guidelines (article size, content forking, summary style and notability) is that a daughter article is part of the parent article for notability purposes because it is not a separate topic. James500 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:SIGCOV IS in fact a guideline. Whereas, to my knowledge, "The topic of a daughter article does not have to be independently notable" is not from a policy or guideline. Dezastru (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if lack of notability can stop us from having a daughter article, this must inevitably result in content being removed (ie deleted or not added in the first place) from the parent article for reasons of length alone, which the "content removal" section of ARTICLESIZE says is not allowed.
 * I don't think that N prohibits a notable topic from having more than one article.
 * The purpose of GNG is to create a presumption of notability. It does not work in reverse. Topics that fail GNG are not presumed to be non-notable. Not that that is relevant to the argument that I advanced. James500 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Question - when does this matter actually get decided? The shutdown is over now (which it wasn't when this AFD started), so we know these bills won't be becoming law.  However, they are still part of a Republican strategy for handling the shutdown, and there's clearly plenty of material for at least one article.  If the consensus is to merge, I'd be happy to work on that, but I don't want to start doing that until this discussion has been closed.  Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been a super-long AfD. I'm not a regular here, but I'm not clear on why it's taking so long given that we seem to have ample community input. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.